From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Some coverage for DROP OWNED BY with pg_default_acl |
Date: | 2021-01-20 04:35:06 |
Message-ID: | YAey+iwgqWFnYyMJ@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 05:49:03PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Heh, interesting case. Added coverage is good, so +1.
Thanks. I read through it again and applied the test.
> Since the role regress_priv_user2 is "private" to the privileges.sql
> script, there's no danger of a concurrent test getting the added lines
> in trouble AFAICS.
It seems to me that it could lead to some trouble if a test running in
parallel expects a set of ACLs with no extra noise, as this stuff adds
data to the catalogs for all objects created while the default
permissions are visible. Perhaps that's an over-defensive position,
but it does not hurt either to be careful similarly to the test run a
couple of lines above.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2021-01-20 05:20:21 | Re: Deleting older versions in unique indexes to avoid page splits |
Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2021-01-20 04:10:28 | Re: Stronger safeguard for archive recovery not to miss data |